Welcome to abstraction layers. You've forgotten what you're doing. The goal here is not to verify the portfolio. The portfolio wasn't the goal. You weren't buying the portfolio. The portfolio was a sales tool -- to help you discuss what you want. So stop seeing the portfolio as anything more than that.
Now, sit back, relax, take more than ten minutes, and think of what it was that you were actually trying to accomplish. If you can explain what you actually want, you'll have stated what you need to do.
Consumers who fall for fake portfolios don't need a technology solution. They need a baseball-bat-to-the-head, and a new set of parents. Verifying that someone you are about to pay is worth paying ain't much of a challenge. You're welcome to take the gamble when you want to live life on the edge, but when you want to make an intelligent decision about a person that you hire, it never comes down to a technological solution. It comes down to not being a moron. It was true two thousand years ago; and it's still true today.
Let me know if you need my help. If you're over the age of 20, be embarassed. If you own a house, be very embarassed. If you can't spell embarrassed after 34 years of learning, be a little embarassed!
Pinball, jazz, pirate radio, free-to-play games, and many many other readily-available forms of entertainment have done precisely that: they've corrupted social norms, minds, recreational pass-times, and priorities.
That's been the point all along.
Protecting the children is a perfectly valid reaction to any event or advance offering an easy-route through a scenario. In the case of free-to-play, it means being able to play games, socially, with friends, with no money, and no job. So if you've used expensive games to convince your children that they need a job to pay for things in life, then that simply won't fly anymore.
If that lesson (needing a job to pay for things to have things) is no longer relevant, then that's fine. But if it is still relevant, then free-to-play games do indeed make raising your children more difficult. How do you intend to teach them that money buys things if they don't need money for anything for what, two decades?
You aren't going to stop feeding them. And you won't (anymore) stop giving them a cell phone. So given a 15 year-old, going to high school, with a phone, free games, food, free school, and a bus pass, it's kind of difficult for them to want a job or career. What's the value of a job to a 15 year-old these days? It ain't movies anymore either.
You can like the corruption, I know I like most of it these days. But it's certainly corruption -- that's how society progresses quickly, within a single generation.
Since when does listening to 3-minute, or 55-minute performances count as a valid listening test? How about listening to the same song for three hours, and then judging whether or not you have a headache the next day?
There are loads of elements to "quality" that aren't easily identified conciously. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. That doesn't mean that they aren't beneficial. That simply means that you can't measure them in a blind listening test in under an hour.
And, of course, none of this takes into account what the violin ought to sound like. What a performer "prefers" has absolutely nothing to do with how the composer wanted it to sound. There are plenty of benefits to things that you don't like, especially when paired with many other sounds concurrently.
But hey, I heard a tamborene last week that had no trouble competing with a tuba and a drummer, without being amplified. It meant that the three instruments could be played off-stage, in the audience. Maybe that's a quality tamborene. Maybe it's not. But that's certainly not the type of attribute that would have been captured by any listening study such as these.
I love it. Geocities returns! MobileCities? I wonder if my very first web-page ever would come back. A thousand dollars says it'll work perfectly on mobile today, with not a single byte of HTML changed. v0.9 to v5.0 in only 2 decades!
I'm the reason that you became an atheist perusing the internet. I'm one of the many who helped you to realize what you now know. I was an atheist before. The Internet is how I can procreate -- the internet is my crusading ground.
I'm confused. Doesn't your country operate democratically? If three-quarters believe something, shouldn't you all be forced to believe it? Mustn't it be taught as fact if that many believe it?
Southern California is not my country. My country's got no such problems. And seeing as how I live in a city with streets like front, lakeshore, and quay, it's basically hundreds of square kilometres of land that wasn't there.
Different country, different attributes. We've got water everywhere here. Water follows humans -- here. Not California. Here. It's a totally different climate. That's the point. If it warms up just a little bit, the soil comes for free.
no time to read all of your likely-shitty reply indicating that you don't know how to read. I'm sure you're commenting on the nth argument instead of on the original subject. you're anonymous, so I'm skipping you. If you don't value your opinions enough to name them, then I don't value them enough to read them.ttfn.
Exactly. But with armed guards turning the police away, they'll never get to your door. You need to read the entire sentence dude. Each word adds meaning.
Throwing a rock through a window requires zero skill, zero training, and any attacker can do it. The non-barred window doesn't resist breaking. For those homes, the purpose of the lock isn't to make the house secure. It doesn't -- there's a window right next to the locked door.
But it's easy to say that breaking a window is intentional trespassing, and hence a criminal offense easily prosecuted. But you can't say that opening an unlocked door and venturing inside is intentional trespassing -- it can be accidental, it can be helpful, it can be authorized. In the former, you need to prove that the person broke the window. In the latter, you need to prove that they weren't at the wrong house -- which is much more difficult, because you need to prove malicious intent.
Most security in this world is about prosecution. Like the video cameras around you house don't stop anyone from breaking in, nor do they help catch the masked thieves -- masks also require zero skill and zero training and anyone can wear one. The cameras prove to your insurance company that the thieves do indeed exist, and wear different shoes than you do. That's about it.
It's "illegal" and "criminal" to break into someone's house by picking the lock or breaking the window. It's neither "illegal" nor "criminal" to open an unlocked door.
Wow, you are far behind. Security is from secure. Safety is from safe. Secure refers to restricting access -- like a lock. Safe refers to not mitigating harm -- like a helmet.
But if you, for one second, believe that "online" isn't a part of the "real world", then you ought to remain anonymously cowardice, because you're an idiot. If I couldn't be harmed via my twitter account, then I wouldn't care about securing it. I secure my twitter account in order to ensure my safety. For you: I secure my online twitter account with online security in order to safeguard my real-world lifestyle.
My whole point, if you had learned how to read points like that, is that this poster (and the article mentioned) discusses increasing security beyond reasonable benefit. The improvement being made doesn't increase safety, it only increases security. Whenever increasing security doesn't increase safety, then it's a waste of time, money, and energy. It just makes money for the person selling it to you.
In your example, and it's a stellar one for me, the desert eagle lets you feel safe. For as long as you have that desert eagle by your bed, why would you need to improve your security by locking your bedroom door?
Think harder boy. I believe in removing links, having fewer links to strengthen. It's called reducing the surface area of attack -- at least it was in the 80's, when I did start my own successful company.
You may be forgetting, if you've ever actually known, that chains are used because they are inexpensive to produce. They aren't better than cables, and they aren't better than lines, and they aren't better than rope -- when better equals stronger. But they are more flexible than cable, way faster to produce than rope, and far easier to produce than lines. Useful for many things, but not when strength is the primary requirement. That's why the rock climbing harness is rope, and the hang-glider harness is a canvas strap, and the tower guy-lines are, well, cables.
So why would you want a chain-system for security? Seems dumb. You should want parallel components, not serial ones. Otherwise, you're trying to be more secure by lengthening your rope. That's just foolish. You want a second rope, not a longer rope.
I have no need to post anything. Why would I choose to help you with my ideas? You can develop your own ideas; not that there's any evidence of that here.
Try learning to think differently than the situation-at-hand. That's called creativity.
No, secure the access, not the information. Encryption is relevant in a scenario where the data needs to be there, and be inaccessible. It doesn't work when the data needs to be accessible at all times. If the data is completely inaccessible, it need never be secured.
So, in this case, since all of the fancy encryption being discussed is entirely absent once the data is in memory, and since that's reported as being acceptable, then we can just put it all there, be the very same acceptable, and then we don't need any of the fancy encryption to begin with.
Look at it this way. Why would you bother locking the front door of your house if you've got three armed security guards and six attack dogs guarding your home?
A physical disconnect is easy to set up. It's at reboot. It's actually a physical-but-momentary connect. That's not high-robotics.
But even a soft disconnect, even something as simple as a dismount. Or a wireless momentary connection. How many hackers are going to have access to mount/connect an invisible disk?
Or, if you like, just overheat the drive after a few minutes of use, and it'll dismount all by itself.
The article says: "if an attacker can read memory on a running server, they can steal passwords unencrypted regardless of the technique that is used".
The article concludes that al we're trying to do is to resist passwords stored on-disk. Congrats. So here's my fix-all solution. When the server is booted, it loads all of the passwords into memory, and then physically disconnects the disk. And we're done. You know, except for the whole entire memory space.
This is just another one of those "make this link in the chain even stronger because once someone broke through it" forgetting that there are dozens of other weaker links that simply have yet to be targetted.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to abstraction layers. You've forgotten what you're doing. The goal here is not to verify the portfolio. The portfolio wasn't the goal. You weren't buying the portfolio. The portfolio was a sales tool -- to help you discuss what you want. So stop seeing the portfolio as anything more than that.
Now, sit back, relax, take more than ten minutes, and think of what it was that you were actually trying to accomplish. If you can explain what you actually want, you'll have stated what you need to do.
Consumers who fall for fake portfolios don't need a technology solution. They need a baseball-bat-to-the-head, and a new set of parents. Verifying that someone you are about to pay is worth paying ain't much of a challenge. You're welcome to take the gamble when you want to live life on the edge, but when you want to make an intelligent decision about a person that you hire, it never comes down to a technological solution. It comes down to not being a moron. It was true two thousand years ago; and it's still true today.
Let me know if you need my help. If you're over the age of 20, be embarassed. If you own a house, be very embarassed. If you can't spell embarrassed after 34 years of learning, be a little embarassed!
Pinball, jazz, pirate radio, free-to-play games, and many many other readily-available forms of entertainment have done precisely that: they've corrupted social norms, minds, recreational pass-times, and priorities.
That's been the point all along.
Protecting the children is a perfectly valid reaction to any event or advance offering an easy-route through a scenario. In the case of free-to-play, it means being able to play games, socially, with friends, with no money, and no job. So if you've used expensive games to convince your children that they need a job to pay for things in life, then that simply won't fly anymore.
If that lesson (needing a job to pay for things to have things) is no longer relevant, then that's fine. But if it is still relevant, then free-to-play games do indeed make raising your children more difficult. How do you intend to teach them that money buys things if they don't need money for anything for what, two decades?
You aren't going to stop feeding them. And you won't (anymore) stop giving them a cell phone. So given a 15 year-old, going to high school, with a phone, free games, food, free school, and a bus pass, it's kind of difficult for them to want a job or career. What's the value of a job to a 15 year-old these days? It ain't movies anymore either.
You can like the corruption, I know I like most of it these days. But it's certainly corruption -- that's how society progresses quickly, within a single generation.
Since when does listening to 3-minute, or 55-minute performances count as a valid listening test? How about listening to the same song for three hours, and then judging whether or not you have a headache the next day?
There are loads of elements to "quality" that aren't easily identified conciously. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. That doesn't mean that they aren't beneficial. That simply means that you can't measure them in a blind listening test in under an hour.
And, of course, none of this takes into account what the violin ought to sound like. What a performer "prefers" has absolutely nothing to do with how the composer wanted it to sound. There are plenty of benefits to things that you don't like, especially when paired with many other sounds concurrently.
But hey, I heard a tamborene last week that had no trouble competing with a tuba and a drummer, without being amplified. It meant that the three instruments could be played off-stage, in the audience. Maybe that's a quality tamborene. Maybe it's not. But that's certainly not the type of attribute that would have been captured by any listening study such as these.
I love it. Geocities returns! MobileCities? I wonder if my very first web-page ever would come back. A thousand dollars says it'll work perfectly on mobile today, with not a single byte of HTML changed. v0.9 to v5.0 in only 2 decades!
Who said anything about netscape? Read harder please. Mobile app vs site is congruent to desktop application vs site.
And, quite frankly, the resolutions are exactly the same as they were too.
Put your name to your arguments, are I'm done with you.
Is anyone else caught in a flashback? Welcome back to the '90s. Same conversation, same observations, same decisions, same results.
Enjoy!
Dude, it's been four days. I don't even remember the conversation. But judging by the scores, others appear to be happy enough.
I look forward to our next discussion.
I'm the reason that you became an atheist perusing the internet. I'm one of the many who helped you to realize what you now know. I was an atheist before. The Internet is how I can procreate -- the internet is my crusading ground.
I'm not alone.
Sounds like a pretty screwed up system. What are you going to do about it?
I'm confused. Doesn't your country operate democratically? If three-quarters believe something, shouldn't you all be forced to believe it? Mustn't it be taught as fact if that many believe it?
I don't understand your methods.
Southern California is not my country. My country's got no such problems. And seeing as how I live in a city with streets like front, lakeshore, and quay, it's basically hundreds of square kilometres of land that wasn't there.
Different country, different attributes. We've got water everywhere here. Water follows humans -- here. Not California. Here. It's a totally different climate. That's the point. If it warms up just a little bit, the soil comes for free.
I don't think you read that correctly.
no time to read all of your likely-shitty reply indicating that you don't know how to read. I'm sure you're commenting on the nth argument instead of on the original subject. you're anonymous, so I'm skipping you. If you don't value your opinions enough to name them, then I don't value them enough to read them.ttfn.
Exactly. But with armed guards turning the police away, they'll never get to your door. You need to read the entire sentence dude. Each word adds meaning.
The only problem there is that you are eating frozen pizza. Please don't do that.
Throwing a rock through a window requires zero skill, zero training, and any attacker can do it. The non-barred window doesn't resist breaking. For those homes, the purpose of the lock isn't to make the house secure. It doesn't -- there's a window right next to the locked door.
But it's easy to say that breaking a window is intentional trespassing, and hence a criminal offense easily prosecuted. But you can't say that opening an unlocked door and venturing inside is intentional trespassing -- it can be accidental, it can be helpful, it can be authorized. In the former, you need to prove that the person broke the window. In the latter, you need to prove that they weren't at the wrong house -- which is much more difficult, because you need to prove malicious intent.
Most security in this world is about prosecution. Like the video cameras around you house don't stop anyone from breaking in, nor do they help catch the masked thieves -- masks also require zero skill and zero training and anyone can wear one. The cameras prove to your insurance company that the thieves do indeed exist, and wear different shoes than you do. That's about it.
It's "illegal" and "criminal" to break into someone's house by picking the lock or breaking the window. It's neither "illegal" nor "criminal" to open an unlocked door.
Wow, you are far behind. Security is from secure. Safety is from safe. Secure refers to restricting access -- like a lock. Safe refers to not mitigating harm -- like a helmet.
But if you, for one second, believe that "online" isn't a part of the "real world", then you ought to remain anonymously cowardice, because you're an idiot. If I couldn't be harmed via my twitter account, then I wouldn't care about securing it. I secure my twitter account in order to ensure my safety. For you: I secure my online twitter account with online security in order to safeguard my real-world lifestyle.
My whole point, if you had learned how to read points like that, is that this poster (and the article mentioned) discusses increasing security beyond reasonable benefit. The improvement being made doesn't increase safety, it only increases security. Whenever increasing security doesn't increase safety, then it's a waste of time, money, and energy. It just makes money for the person selling it to you.
In your example, and it's a stellar one for me, the desert eagle lets you feel safe. For as long as you have that desert eagle by your bed, why would you need to improve your security by locking your bedroom door?
true.
cached, in-memory for the day?
No. No I didn't.
Did you lock your car?
Think harder boy. I believe in removing links, having fewer links to strengthen. It's called reducing the surface area of attack -- at least it was in the 80's, when I did start my own successful company.
You may be forgetting, if you've ever actually known, that chains are used because they are inexpensive to produce. They aren't better than cables, and they aren't better than lines, and they aren't better than rope -- when better equals stronger. But they are more flexible than cable, way faster to produce than rope, and far easier to produce than lines. Useful for many things, but not when strength is the primary requirement. That's why the rock climbing harness is rope, and the hang-glider harness is a canvas strap, and the tower guy-lines are, well, cables.
So why would you want a chain-system for security? Seems dumb. You should want parallel components, not serial ones. Otherwise, you're trying to be more secure by lengthening your rope. That's just foolish. You want a second rope, not a longer rope.
I have no need to post anything. Why would I choose to help you with my ideas? You can develop your own ideas; not that there's any evidence of that here.
Try learning to think differently than the situation-at-hand. That's called creativity.
No, secure the access, not the information. Encryption is relevant in a scenario where the data needs to be there, and be inaccessible. It doesn't work when the data needs to be accessible at all times. If the data is completely inaccessible, it need never be secured.
So, in this case, since all of the fancy encryption being discussed is entirely absent once the data is in memory, and since that's reported as being acceptable, then we can just put it all there, be the very same acceptable, and then we don't need any of the fancy encryption to begin with.
Look at it this way. Why would you bother locking the front door of your house if you've got three armed security guards and six attack dogs guarding your home?
A physical disconnect is easy to set up. It's at reboot. It's actually a physical-but-momentary connect. That's not high-robotics.
But even a soft disconnect, even something as simple as a dismount. Or a wireless momentary connection. How many hackers are going to have access to mount/connect an invisible disk?
Or, if you like, just overheat the drive after a few minutes of use, and it'll dismount all by itself.
Oh, I very much am not.
The article says: "if an attacker can read memory on a running server, they can steal passwords unencrypted regardless of the technique that is used".
The article concludes that al we're trying to do is to resist passwords stored on-disk. Congrats. So here's my fix-all solution. When the server is booted, it loads all of the passwords into memory, and then physically disconnects the disk. And we're done. You know, except for the whole entire memory space.
This is just another one of those "make this link in the chain even stronger because once someone broke through it" forgetting that there are dozens of other weaker links that simply have yet to be targetted.